Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Human–Computer Interfaces in a Cross-Cultural Setting

Chapter

Abstract

Increasing globalization has created tremendous opportunities and challenges for organizations and society. Organizations attempt to draw on people’s varied experience, skills, and creativity, regardless of their location; consequently, a broad range of information technologies to better support the collaboration of diverse, and increasingly distributed, sets of participants are ever more utilized. However, research on cross-cultural computer-mediated collaboration has thus far remained sparse. To this end, this research-in-progress paper reports on a study that will examine the effectiveness of modifications of a group collaboration environment’s human–computer interface on group performance, taking into consideration the effects of national culture of the group members. We will test different levels of feedback as a mechanism to increase performance in a controlled laboratory experiment with participants from the USA and East Asia, so as to examine their differential effects across cultures differing widely on the individualism/collectivism dimension. Finally, we will discuss the implications of the findings for the design of the human–computer interface for cross-cultural computer-mediated idea generation and computer-mediated collaboration in general.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The work described in this paper was substantially supported by a research grant from City University of Hong Kong (Project No.7008019).

References

  1. 1.
    Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barki, H., and Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality: Is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32(2): 158–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjelland, O. M., and Chapman Wood, R. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1): 32–40.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, B., and Paulus, P. B. (1996). A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(1): 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, B., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., and Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4): 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chidambaram, L., and Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2): 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., and Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6): 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Connolly, T., and Wynne, B. E. (1996). Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research, 7(2): 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4): 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., and Davison, R. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we?: Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1): 130–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heslin, P. A. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1): 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software for the mind. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jessup, L. M. (1989). The deindividuating effects of anonymity on automated group idea generation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., and Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments. Management Science, 56(4): 724–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karau, S. J., and Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4): 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latane, B., Williams, K. D., and Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6): 823–832.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., and Coombes, J. (2003). Culture and anonymity in GSS meetings. In G. Ditsa (Ed.), Information Management: Support Systems & Multimedia Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michener, H. A., and DeLamater, J. D. (1999). Social psychology (Vol. 4). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mullen, B., Johnson, C., and Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., et al. (1996). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3): 163–207.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinig, B. A., Briggs, R. O., and Nunamaker, J. F. (2007). On the measurement of ideation quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(4): 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reinig, B. A., and Mejias, R. J. (2004). The effects of national culture and anonymity on flaming and criticalness in GSS-supported discussions. Small Group Research, 35(6): 698–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Straus, S. G., and McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3): 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., and Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3): 448–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Valacich, J. S., Jung, J. H., and Looney, C. (2006). The effects of individual cognitive ability and idea stimulation on individual idea generation performance. Group Dynamics, 10(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van de Ven, A., and Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4): 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venkatesh, V., and Agarwal, R. (2006). Turning visitors into customers: A usability-centric perspective on purchase behavior in e-channels. Management Science, 52(3): 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venkatesh, V., and Speier, C. (1999). Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of mood. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Watson, R. T., Ho, T. H., and Raman, K. S. (1994). Culture: a fourth dimension of group support systems. Communications of the ACM, 37(10): 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang, P. (2008). Toward a positive design theory: Principles for designing motivating information and communication technologies. In M. Avital, R. J. Boland, & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Designing information and organizations with a positive lens, Advances in Appreciative Inquiry. (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam: JAI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsCity University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Management Information Systems, Eller College of ManagementThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations